"He asked me for money and I said I didn't have it," Sherry West, the boy’s mom, told The Associated Press Friday from her apartment, which was scattered with her son's toys and movies. "When you have a baby, you spend all your money on babies. They're expensive. And he kept asking and I just said `I don't have it.' And he said, `Do you want me to kill your baby?' And I said, `No, don't kill my baby!"'

One of the teens allegedly fired four shots, grazing West's ear and striking her in the leg, before he walked around to the stroller and shot the baby in the face.

A pair of teenagers was arrested Friday in the most recent shooting. West had just been to the post office a few blocks from her apartment Thursday morning and was pushing her son, Antonio, in his stroller while they walked past gnarled oak trees and blooming azaleas in the coastal city of Brunswick.

Seventeen-year-old De'Marquis Elkins is charged as an adult with first-degree murder, along with a 14-year-old who was not identified because he is a juvenile, Police Chief Tobe Green said. It wasn't immediately clear whether the boys had attorneys.

He wouldn't have shot the baby if he didn't have a gun. Simple logic. I don't know why you American fags can't grasp this simple concept.

Banning guns is the only solution.

What if he had a pointed stick?

The suspect's facebook page has a note in the "about me" section that explains him and his fellow colloquial racial epithets will make your block a murder scene.

Also of note,IIRC, the victim identified him from a mug shot. This was not his first crime.
If they gave him the death penalty for the first offense, this would never have happened.
Such a simple concept.

He wouldn't have shot the baby if he didn't have a gun. Simple logic. I don't know why you American fags can't grasp this simple concept.

Banning guns is the only solution.

What if he had a pointed stick?

++

Or a brick, a rock... it's not the tool, but the asshole wielding the tool that is the problem.

The criminals have voted with their feet. The reason why they don't use rocks/bricks/sticks is because they aren't as effective as an offensive tool. Their go to weapon is a gun; light, easily obtainable, concealable, effective... what's not to like?

dmitchell wrote:

I can't think of a torture painful enough for someone who does such a thing.

Seriously. One is a couple of notches lower than pond scum if one can do that.

I don't understand why have been tagged in the subject. is one implied solution that the women should have been armed?

The criminals have voted with their feet. The reason why they don't use rocks/bricks/sticks is because they aren't as effective as an offensive tool. Their go to weapon is a gun; light, easily obtainable, concealable, effective... what's not to like?

Some people cut the hands off thieves, and we shake our heads. But, even they weren't stupid enough to come up with the idea of cutting EVERYBODY's hands off. And before you knee-jerk, yes, guns do have legitimate uses (in fact our Constitution grants us the right to have them for that reason).

juniper wrote:

I don't understand why have been tagged in the subject.

You were tagged because you obsessively focus on the gun, not the crime, criminal, or cause. That's why it said "gun demands money, shoots baby". The gun didn't do that; a man did it.

True to form, you did it here again. This is a guy who would have done exactly the same thing with a knife, a broken bottle or his hands, if he didn't have a gun. The gun isn't the problem; the problem is the man. You're hopeless._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

obsessively focus[ing] on the gun, not the crime, criminal, or cause. That's why it said "gun demands money, shoots baby". The gun didn't do that; a man did it.

[...] This is a guy who would have done exactly the same thing with a knife, a broken bottle or his hands, if he didn't have a gun. The gun isn't the problem; the problem is the man. You're hopeless.

I really don't understand why people ignore the underlying cause. If they addressed both, that would at least be more understandable. That said, guns do make it easier. But attacking the gun is nothing more than ignorantly trying to sweep the problem under the rug._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Really? How much harder is it for an 19-year-old man to pick up a baby and smash it to the ground than it is to pull out a gun and shoot it in the face?_________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Much more difficult IMO. Less so physically than emotionally / psychologically. Not everybody has a gun, yet we don't see many reports where people have actually done what you suggest is just as easy.

It takes a certain kind of "evil" to shoot a baby. It would take something far more nefarious to pick it up and slam it into the ground._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

And before you knee-jerk, yes, guns do have legitimate uses (in fact our Constitution grants us the right to have them for that reason).

Have I claimed otherwise? Self defense comes to mind, as well as hunting.

Quote:

You were tagged because you obsessively focus on the gun, not the crime, criminal, or cause. That's why it said "gun demands money, shoots baby". The gun didn't do that; a man did it.

True to form, you did it here again. This is a guy who would have done exactly the same thing with a knife, a broken bottle or his hands, if he didn't have a gun. The gun isn't the problem; the problem is the man. You're hopeless.

This guy could have had a bottle, but he didn't, probably because a gun is a better offensive weapon, and he's right.

I don't get your point. Guns are legal in Georgia, and some scumbag shot a baby. Does this mean guns are bad? As you point out, this asshole could have killed the baby without a firearm, and you want to conclude guns *aren't* bad. you are right. This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.

This lone incident doesn't really say much about the gun debate, except that it is one of 11,000 homicides involving guns.

The problem is why is it occurring in the first place. It has nothing to do with guns or the gun debate, yet I can guarantee you the anti-gun crowd will use this as "justification" of why government should further abridge liberty. With no meaningful concern for why it is happening. The availability of guns isn't the cause._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.